Internet usage.

Obviously it's an American site, but it applies to all of us, worldwide.

I would like to know who is expected to maintain it, and how to finance it. The Cloud is free for example, but its range is limited - and Google run it.

Have you read the link, janer?

Tim Berner Lee didn't invent the internet, but the World Wide Web to interface with it. He is an advocate of net neutrality, largely because he believes that ISPs should not interfere with how users interact, and should not snoop on or censor their activities.

I have - but don't know Sprint. When I say 'who', and 'pay' I mean, we will all have to pay through, I presume, advertising. So we pay for it by suffering endless adverts and potentially being spied on.

Or we pay BT or someone a subscription, and suffer fewer adverts and less intrusion.

I prefer the subscription method.

It's a bit like newspapers and paywalls. I quite often get given links to articles that I can only see if I am signed up to the site, such as the Times paywall. If there is no net neutrality, we will have to pay for more than our ISP.

I see. Yet there is so much advertising at every level, does it really pay enough to cover a journalist's fees? Newspapers are dying fast in print. They have to cover their costs somehow, and pay wages.

I admit to feeling thoroughly irked when the Times and the Telegraph started to charge. Yet I don't blame them really.

The problem is that if that happened all over the internet, it would only be the rich who would be able to use it.
Most of us did not know what the internet was until the world wide web happened.

Does this actually fit in here?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/guardian-view-digital-conservation-we-must-act-now

It's possibly just as important. Where do you store your digital information?
Can't imagine Google going bust and the cloud disappearing, but what would happen if they had to pay all their taxes?

Net neutrality is a long and complicated topic. Basically about whether ISPs should be allowed to charge services such as YouTube (Google owns YouTube) and Netflix more money for streaming their data across the Internet.

The argument made for charging more is that ISPs have to supply the streaming of data quickly so that people don't suffer pauses when watching videos or films. A lot of Internet bandwidth is needed in order to do this. The ISPs would seemingly like to charge high bandwidth usage companies an extra premium for providing it.

The argument against charging more is that ISPs should provide as much bandwidth as is needed for everyone, including big the big companies mentioned, regardless of content or the amount of bandwidth involved needed to deliver it.

What happens is important to all of us because it is we who might ultimately pay the extra cost if ISPs charge companies more for 'fast-laning' data. Also, it isn't just an American issue. Since the data we receive can take various routes around the World, much of our data might come via America, if not directly from there.

It's for sure that there are some very lengthy and complicated articles about Net neutrality. Possibly the sort of article that makes the eyes glaze over a bit. Type 'net neutrality' into a search engine and you'll find plenty.

A way to get an understanding of Net neutrality could be to watch some YouTube videos on the subject. Below are links to a couple. There are more on YouTube that describe it in other ways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jeqTAjbWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz4Ej3IVefo